Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 2526
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.Ravindra Bhat, Sudershan Kumar Misra, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
B.L. Patney - Respondent
LPA 1122/2004, LPA 27/2005 & W.P.(C) 21859/2005, C.M. NO. 14321/2005
Decided On : 16-05-2013
Sh. V.K. Sharma with Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocates, for Sh. B.L. Patney, respondent in LPA 1122/2004 and appellant in LPA 27/2005 and W.P.(C) 21859/2005.
Sh. Rajiv Bansal with Sh. Devvrat Singh, Advocates, for DDA - appellant in LPA 1122/2004 and respondents in LPA 27/2005 and W.P.(C) 21859/2005.
Headnote:
Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Non-allotment of plot - Harassment - Compensation - Equitable relief on balancing interests - Single Judge noticed that the justification for re-auctioning the plot by DDA was that its property register had been seized by C.B.I. - Appellant was subjected to intense harassment; after paying the full consideration, he was subjected to unimaginable hardship, in regard to payment of extra consideration, demand of interest on it, execution of lease deed, defect in the lease deed, etc. - Intervening circumstance also where a third party, without knowledge or notice acquired rights, and proceeded to construct on the plot, too could not be ignored - Held: Court did not entertain any doubt that the Single Judge correctly directed payment of compensation to Appellant - Directions of Single Judge to be complied with, and a plot or a developed plot as near to that locality, shall be handed over to Appellant's legal representatives - Appeals dismissed.
[Paras 6, 11, 12]
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The present common judgment will dispose off two appeals, one by Sh. B.L. Patney, being LPA No. 27/2005 and LPA No. 1122/2004 by the Delhi Development Authority, hereafter "DDA" and the other a Writ Petition, i.e. W.P.(C) 21859/2005 by Sh. B.L. Patney. The appeals impugn the common judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 01.11.2004 in W.P.(C) 1967/2003, (filed by one Sh. Khushdeep Bansal) and W.P.(C) 10928/2004, preferred by Sh. B.L. Patney.
2. The DDA had auctioned 83.61 square metres plot (Plot No. A-3/133, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi; hereafter "the plot"); Shri Patney participated in the auction. His bid at Rs. 2,92,000/-, was the highest and was accepted on 18.01.1988. The full bid amount was paid on 17.02.1988. Pending completion of formalities for execution of the perpetual sub-lease document, possession of the plot was offered to Shri Patney, who went to the site on 14.06.1988. The concerned DDA official did not hand over possession since the area of the plot was 95.52 sq.meters, discovered after measurement that day. Later, on 26.04.1989, DDA demanded a further sum of Rs. 41,594.55/-, calculated for the excess area. Shri Patney paid the sum within the time demanded; DDA also demanded Rs. 3,033/- towards interest, which again was paid in time. On 01.12.1989, possession of the plot was handed over.
3. The Lease Deed for the plot was not executed. Shri Patney, being aggrieved, approached the State Commission (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) [hereafter referred to as "the State Commission"], seeking compensation for deficiency in service, towards not measuring the plot, handing it over late, demanding interest, and for the delay in execution of the Lease Deed. He stated that there was no reason to charge interest for the additional demand, and interest from the date after 30 days' of bid confirmation. The next deficiency pointed out was that at the time of auction, frontage of the plot was shown to be 20 ft. but at site it came to 17-1/2 ft. Further deficiency pointed out was that possession at site was delivered on 01.12.1989, i.e. after 23 months of the auction. On 24.01.1991, the State Commission awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 65,000/- to Shri Patney.
4. Seemingly irked at the proceedings before the State Commission, DDA did not execute the Lease Deed. After Shri Patney's repeated requests, the DDA, on 06.08.1992 sent a draft Perpetual Lease Deed to him. This draft Lease Deed incorrectly described the plot dimensions. Shri Patney highlighted this to the DDA which did not remedy the mistake; this led to another complaint to the State Commission. During pendency of this complaint, the Lease Deed was executed on 03.03.1994. Shri Patney noticed that the Lease Deed stipulated that he would construct a building after obtaining sanction within two years from the date of delivery of possession, i.e. 01.12.1989. As it was not possible to complete the task within the stipulated time, he, therefore, applied for extension of time to construct on the plot. DDA did not extend the time. On 16.07.1998, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed DDA to grant extension of time for construction. Shri Patney was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This decision was challenged by DDA before the National Consumer Forum; its appeal was rejected on 29.04.1999. The DDA's Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the decision of National Consumer Forum [SLP (C) No. 15445/99] was dismissed on 31.01.2000. In the meanwhile, Shri Patney retired from service as Joint Chief Manager, Bank of India on 30.06.1992 and remained without a roof; he continued to live in a rented accommodation. The amount paid to DDA for purchase of the plot was Rs. 3,36,000/-. In the meantime, the cost of construction soared; by the time the DDA's Petition was dismissed, 12 years elapsed.
5. Shri Patney's woes did not end there; in August 2002, DDA put up for auction plots in Paschim Vihar. Plot No.
